Talk:Lizardmen (Warhammer)

relations?

I much as well now the lizardmens are mortal enemy with chaos,skaven and dark elves but i don't know their relations with many other races like: orcs and goblins,brettonia wm. And i can understand they are pissed off on humans who loots their cities. But if someone know i would gladly read the answers ;] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.224.178.178 (talk) 08:23:56, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Here's a basic rundown of their relations with the other races as far as I know:

High/Wood Elves- The Lizardmen are most likely unaware of the split between the Elves; they see them all as one single race (as the Old Ones had intended). The actions of the Dark Elves have caused the Lizardmen to distrust all Elves.

Dwarves- It doesn't say in the Army Book (from what I can find) about the Lizardmen-Dwarf relationship. All it says is that some of the Dwarven strongholds were destroyed when the Slann tried to shift the land.

Tomb Kings/Vampire Counts- It's safe to say that the Lizardmen don't like the Undead after Luthor Harkon (a Vampire) tried to create an army of dead sailors in order to take over Lustria.

Greenskins- The Old Ones didn't create Orcs and Goblins, and the Lizardmen have tried repeatedly (and unsuccessfully) to eliminate them. Groundlord (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I hav Edited Templ cities making a refrence of the Aztec since they hade temple cities 118.208.150.95 (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the detail ?!?

There is a huge amount of detail missing from this artical such as: Salamanders, Teradons, Stegadon, Crocsigor, Cameleon skinks, Cold ones, and dogs of war units. It is also missing all the details about the rules and satistics of the units, if you are going to have an artical about lizardmen then you need to inclued everything, especally if it is the only one around, If you won't fix it i'll do it myself.

Including specific rules and stats would breach GW's copyright, so that's out-of-bounds.--2p0rk 12:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Lots of fluff, not much substance

This article has plenty of fluff, but needs more tactical content. There's not a lot here that actually describes how a lizardman army works in battle. I've added some notes about stegadons, salamanders, etc, but I don't want to go too much further without discussion, since tactics can be so subjective. --2p0rk 12:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we could really fit in any tactics without violating WP:OR. However, if one could source it to the Army Book, then it would probably be fine. I unfortunately, stopped playing WHFB about... forever ago so I can't. But I'd love to help if you can think of a way of getting it past WP:OR. --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

one could, without printing copy-righted individual stats, avoid Original Research complaints by including information referencing the army book such as "X unit is strong and tough, comparable to A,B,C in the game" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.163.20 (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this page doesn't contain enough facts. At the moment it smacks more of fanboyish than anything else. I suggest summarising the differences between each iteration of the Lizardmen army book and information on the model range if that is available (sculptor, material model is made of, and year released). Unfortunately, I only have access to the 2009 and 2005 army books so anything earlier is a mystery to me. I also agree with the unsigned comment that unit stats is a no go area and is beyond the scope of this page.Govworker (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Army Book

I have acsess to to the latest army book. General Aion 05:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, good for you? Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Who?

Who is Oxayotl? I haven't heard or read his name ANYWHERE other than this page; I never saw him on one of the Games Workshop site pages, and he sure as hell isn't in the Army Book. Groundlord (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

He is in the latest Army Book. With these major differences between each edition - should that level of detail be shown here? Govworker (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable Lizardmen

We have all the notable characters mentioned twice (Captain Obvious here, I know), so one needs to go. Should we get rid of the large list at the bottom or the invididual lists under each species? I'm leaning towards the large list at the bottom but since I don't normally edit Warhammer stuff I'd like some other people's opinions. Ageofe (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lizardmen (Warhammer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222103242/http://www.solegends.com/citc/c27pigmies.htm to http://www.solegends.com/citc/c27pigmies.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209182205/http://www.solegends.com/citc/c30amazons.htm to http://www.solegends.com/citc/c30amazons.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222184644/http://www.solegends.com/citc/c32slann1.htm to http://www.solegends.com/citc/c32slann1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)